Friday, October 16, 2009

Is the Blessed Virgin Mary Impeccable (i.e., Incapable of Sinning)?

My wife and I have been listening to the Catholic Answers Live podcasts in the car (I got an iPhone for Father's Day) together of late, and what their guest apologists (Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Ray, etc.) are really good at, is defending our devotion to Mary.My wife, a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, has come a very long way in understanding the Catholic devotion to Mary, especially in terms of accepting how she was conceived without Original Sin, that she had no other children, and so forth, but the one thing that she can't grasp is how Mary could have remained sinless throughout her life. I have an idea in my head of how I could explain it to her, but I would like to hear (read) how you would or might explain it first.

Thanks, Dave. I do, however, have a question regarding Mary's "grace". I just need it to be clarified so I can better explain it to my wife (it has always made perfect sense to me, but then again I've always believed it and never felt the need to question it).Does Mary's "grace" impart to more than the Immaculate Conception, i.e. because this grace was bestowed upon her, while she had the capacity to sin in life due to her human nature, did this grace make her incapable of sinning?

Great follow-up questions.

The answer is "yes" -- but it needs to be immediately understood that there is a crucial distinction between Mary's impeccability and God's impeccability.

God cannot possibly sin because He is God and sin is an utter contradiction of God's Nature. Mary couldn't have sinned because God performed the very special miracle of grace: the Immaculate Conception: literally filling her with grace in a way that is.almost beyond our comprehension. Sinlessness was not intrinsic to her nature (i.e., prior to and considered apart from the Immaculate Conception), as with God. Blog regular Jonathan Prejean has written eloquently about this, drawing the distinction between necessary and contingent impeccability:

No finite creature with a free will is intrinsically impeccable, because that would require either a perfect alignment between the ultimate end and the will (which is only true of God according to His divine nature) or a voluntary acceptance of that end in advance of creation (which is only true of the voluntary assumption of the human nature in the Incarnation). But the righteous angels and saints in Heaven are contingently impeccable on account of having been fixed in virtue by their initial choice (for angels) and by their state of grace at death (for saints). Likewise, it does seem entirely possible that Mary would have been contingently impeccable on account of the Immaculate Conception, and I think that is likely to be true, although it would not necessarily have to be the case.

Mary always said "yes" to God's will, all by God's grace, but not apart from her free will. She had a very significant "extra" aid: being "full of grace".

I'm asking this because when I have tried to explain this to my wife, she then argues that if this is the case then it places her, Mary, on equal footing - in terms of divinity - with Jesus Christ, as if she is a deity.

She's not on an equal footing with God because of the distinction noted above. Mary is not who she is, intrinsically, but because of the aid of God's special and extraordinary graces in her case. Hence, The Catholic Encyclopedia ("The Blessed Virgin Mary") asserts:

Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin never experienced the motions of concupiscence.

Mary had no concupiscence, or inclination towards, or unbalanced desire for sin, as we all do, because the effects of original sin were removed from her by a special act of God's grace, and due to being "full of grace." Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. elaborates:

[S]inless Mary was impeccable, preserved by an extraordinary grace from God from ever being capable of offending God by deliberate sin. Yet though impeccable Mary was able to choose. This bears emphasis. We are so accustomed to identifying freedom as choosing between good and evil that we forget the highest use of our liberty is not to choose "not to sin", but rather to choose to do more than we have to do or that we are obliged to do – in a word, to choose to be generous. Like Mary, then, we can choose to give God more than He demands under pain of sin. We can choose to love God with our whole heart and not just to avoid His punishment.

Two special factors rendered Mary impeccable or unable to sin. The first was her constant awareness of God, living always in his presence, and the second was her reception of special and extraordinary graces. These special graces made it possible for Mary to maintain a perfect harmony in her mind, will and emotions and to recognize always what was the right thing to do and then to do it.

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".

Catholic apologist David Palm wrote on one of the Catholic Answers forums (23 March 2009):

[W]e will have free wills in heaven, yet be unable to sin. That is a mystery, but unless I'm mistaken I believe the trajectory of human redemption goes:

Pre-Fall Adam/Eve - Able not to sin

Fallen human nature - Not able not to sin

The glorified in heaven - Not able to sin

By anticipation Our Lady received graces such that her whole life she lived out that final state of glorified human nature, not able to sin.

We know very well that Jesus had the capacity to sin due to his fully human nature, but did not because he was fully divine.

This is technically incorrect. He could not possibly have sinned because He is 100% God as well as 100% man. The Divine Nature is impeccable, and Jesus is a Divine Person with a perfect unity of Divine and Human Natures (the Hypostatic Union). Therefore He could not have sinned. For more on this, see:

Oh how I wish that our Protestant brethren could grasp the true nature of our deep love for and veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary! It's such an extraordinarily beautiful thing. She is God's very highest creature. Eve said "no" but she said "yes" and that led to the Incarnation that saved sinners, etc. What Eve could have done (in terms of not sinning), but did not do, Mary did.

It's not "idolatry" at all. We're not raising Mary to Godhood in any way, shape, or form, or taking away anything from God. To the contrary, we are praising God for making Mary who she is: such a magnificent example of the true potential of human beings and what God had always intended for the human race.

When a person praises the great masterpiece of an artist, he is really praising the artist. No one would make the ridiculous statement that in praising the art, somehow we are equating the art with the artist, or acting as if it took his place or arose apart from his entire creation and "enabling" of it. So why do Protestants make the same sorts of statements about Marian veneration?

Granted, some Catholics are excessive in their veneration, but that doesn't annihilate the whole concept of biblical veneration in thankfulness for God's grace and mercy and love. The distortion of a thing by uneducated (though usually well-meaning) people does not mean that the thing itself is null and void.

@Dave:If we argue that Mary is impeccable (which she is not) then we are indeed giving her a divine trait that she doesn't possess.

I don't think this adequately distinguishes between contingent impeccability and necessary impeccability. No finite creature with a free will is intrinsically impeccable, because that would require either a perfect alignment between the ultimate end and the will (which is only true of God according to His divine nature) or a voluntary acceptance of that end in advance of creation (which is only true of the voluntary assumption of the human nature in the Incarnation). But the righteous angels and saints in Heaven are contingently impeccable on account of having been fixed in virtue by their initial choice (for angels) and by their state of grace at death (for saints). Likewise, it does seem entirely possible that Mary would have been contingently impeccable on account of the Immaculate Conception, and I think that is likely to be true, although it would not necessarily have to be the case.

@Maureen:But if Mary were absolutely impeccable, it would mean she didn't have fully free will. Puppets can't sin.

But being able to sin or not sin, and choosing not to sin every time, is different. It's heroic.

Be careful now; you're precariously close to Nestorianism. Remember, Jesus had a free, human will exactly like outs, and He was absolutely impeccable. There is nothing intrinsic to the human will that requires the freedom to sin in order for the will to avoid being a "puppet." If that were true, then to preserve Jesus's impeccability, you would either have to separate the divine nature from the human or to conflate the two wills (divine and human) into one. Jesus's voluntary suffering was certainly heroic, in that it was borne despite an entirely natural will not to die (Luke 22:42), but it certainly didn't involve the possibility of sinning by defying the divine will.

I don't mean to seem too harsh, but we have to always be conscious of the facts regarding what Jesus has in common with us, which is the human nature. We can't draw distinctions in such a way that it separates Jesus's human nature from our own, on pain of Nestorianism.

Likewise, it does seem entirely possible that Mary would have been contingently impeccable on account of the Immaculate Conception, and I think that is likely to be true, although it would not necessarily have to be.

I knew a priest who, in the process of writing a book about Mary, insisted this was the necessary view. He claimed that Mary was the, "Created Yes" to God's question. He was quiet insistent that at the Annunciation she could not say no. The idea of contingent impeccability was no doubt caught up in his argument.

I was never able to attend a lecture by him to find out more though the question has tantalized me since.

This is not an argument from God's foreknowledge, but, rather, something like the function of who she was. The priest did not explain though it was his meaning was clear. Neither did he ever elaborate so I will try to extrapolate. (I'm guessing here, don't shoot me :)

(Weak argument):Initially , we already have a first Eve that failed her test. If the second Eve were submitted to the same test and failed then we would need, what to be saved from both of their failures?

(Slightly better by analogy)Imagine for a moment, Adam and Eve had said "No" to Satan instead of to God. Now they have children. Clearly the children are born without concupiscence but, moreover, I don't imagine they each would face Satan in the same manner as their parents. I believe they would have been impeccable by virtue of their parents "non-Fall". They would have worked for the continued salvation of the world in some manner than what we do now.

In no sense do I see these wild speculations as necessary facts I only argue that an impeccable Mary is possible.

As an afterthought I googled "virgin mary impeccable" and guess what I found, "Theologians assert that Mary was impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a special Divine privilege. " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

This aint the Catechism and perhaps the author meant something other that what I read....but there it is in the catholic Encylopedia, "Mary is impeccable"

BTW: I was shocked to find this post listed on USATODAY inviting people to comment sort of like it was their own work.

Catholicism certainly agrees with #1 in both definitions. Mary was flawless, perfect, and sinless.

I do have to revise my view, however, after consulting a few more sources, including Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., my mentor of sorts. He wrote:

"The second lesson is that sinless Mary was impeccable, preserved by an extraordinary grace from God from ever being capable of offending God by deliberate sin. Yet though impeccable Mary was able to choose. This bears emphasis. We are so accustomed to identifying freedom as choosing between good and evil that we forget the highest use of our liberty is not to choose "not to sin", but rather to choose to do more than we have to do or that we are obliged to do – in a word, to choose to be generous. Like Mary, then, we can choose to give God more than He demands under pain of sin. We can choose to love God with our whole heart and not just to avoid His punishment."

(From: "The Handmaid of Humanity:Mary, Woman of Salvation History")

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mariology/Mariology_003.htm

Fr. Kenneth Baker, S. J. writes in similar vein:

"Two special factors rendered Mary impeccable or unable to sin. The first was her constant awareness of God, living always in his presence, and the second was her reception of special and extraordinary graces. These special graces made it possible for Mary to maintain a perfect harmony in her mind, will and emotions and to recognize always what was the right thing to do and then to do it."

Hi Dave.The words of Fr Kenneth Baker which you quoted are very true and beautiful,but i wonder why didnt he mention the most important reason of all?love...The blessed virgin mary didnt obey God out of fear but out of love for the Lord and out of love for us , just like our Lord also did what he did out of love for us ,because God is love...I also have to agree with Maureen with what she said about the blessed virgin Mary .But being able to sin or not sin, and choosing not to sin every time, is different. It's heroic.In fact , the blessed virgin Mary was not only a recipient chosen by God and incapable of saying no or incapable of sinning , in fact she freely obeyed the Lord and she freely loved the Lord and she freely and heroically fought sin and the devil,and this is why she is what she is .In fact the cathechism tells us that she freely said yes at the annuciation488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary":126

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.So if she freely had to say yes,then she could chose...and if we continue reading the cathechism, we realise that we dont find the words unable to sin or incapable of sinning,but that she was redeemed in a more exalted way by Christ , and she is all holy not because she was incapable of sinning ,The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long."Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

Hi Dave again.and then again in the cathechism,we read , that she freely gave her consent ,494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace...So i guess that because we find so often the word freely,then she must have had a free will,and because she had a free will , she willfully obeyed God always in every single moment by the grace of God of course...

It comes down to the paradox (?) of being free and yet incapable of sinning. It's one of the deepest questions of theology and philosophy alike. Yet we believe it about the saved in heaven and the unfallen angels.

So I see no difficulty in applying it to Mary, too. It depends on what angle the question is approached from.

At the same time, it is important to distinguish Mary's impeccability from God's, because of the constant charge of idolatry and fears of over-exaltation of Mary, from our Protestant brethren. We have to take pains to present what we believe accurately and in terms that they can understand.

Hi Dave again.If i am not mistaking and correct me plz if i am wrong,about the saved in heaven and unfallen angels,one of the reasons why they dont sin,is that in eternity there is no time,in fact eternity means timeless and endless ,so we cannot say that now they dont sin but maybe in the future,because in heaven there is only now,no past and no future...Of course i am not saying that this is the only reason why they dont sin,but probably on of the reasons???

If you hold that the efficacious graces given to our Lady were not able to be resisted by her you are a Heretic and objectively stand condemned and in mortal sin by the Roman Catholic Church. It is a Dogma of the Faith that even efficacious gracious, and sufficient graces, given to human persons can be rejected. It is possible even having received the state of original justice that Immaculate Mary could have chosen to sin. This truth on Grace and free will was solemnly declared by Pope Innocent X, in the 17th Century against Janesenism. This truth is cited de fide (Dogmatic- divinely revealed) in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals Bk4 Ch4 Sect14, on Grace and free will in human persons. This truth is also briefly referenced to in CCC1732. If you don't believe the Church then you need to write Cardinal Levada, current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. FOR THE LOVE OF TRUTH! STOP SPREADING THIS ERROR THAT OUR LADY WAS IMPECCABLE!!!!!!!!! IT IS SIN TO SAY THIS ABOUT GRACE IN HER!!!!

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

Though the discussion of Mary's Impeccablility passes beyond my paygrade. I see quotes from orthodox intelligent people who seem, in some fashion, to hold it as something that can be discussed. Maybe we all need a clearer understanding of this but breathing firey threats of heresy ain't gonna help.

Could it be said that even though Mary could sin, that doesn't meant that she would sin. This means that there leaves the possibility that she could indeed choose evil, but that she just never would because of the grace moving within her.

Jesus was tempted by Satan and tempted in every way. Could Mary be tempted? If she couldn't be tempted, how does that impeccability not make her more than Jesus?

My speculation is that Mary was concieved in the womb of st. Anne by the Holy Spirit. The reason fo r this is that the incarnation Mary was covered by the shadow of this spirt and that was conceived wirhin h her was holy the son of god. So she herself is Holy onceived within th womb of st. Anne Concieved by the holy spifit and therefor born of God . Ray

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).